Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Leihinahina Sullivan, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court briefSep 29, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

25-6584 GRIGOR

(n The

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED.

Supreme Courl of- Uie Un'i-bd

SEP 2 9 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Leihm<atatn6{ SuUivexn " (MMicrner

VS-

U ncted Sfodesof Amenoi - tespanden fO.)

On ffeh-hom -fz>r Wn-f- o-p CerfiomH "Ta

Un<

^S-fedes* CxacrV of-

4Ve/ vitnfVi Cueufc

Peh-htv) -for VVH+- 41 GHio

Leihin^hin^ SuUivevH) Pe^orer

VicforviHe Camp FO Med?X

PO bQK t5dC©

AdeUn-fo, CA ^TZ-^o |

Qtesfions

Presented

setf-

6") WVieU'i-ev' Stoindky Counsel Rickard tloke violated SuUiv^mos.

representation i/vhen he filed c*. Motice <d Jlntenf that lc

pahenf ~ psychcoVtiewTipy records fvom Or Pieh which u/as cxll Shsirod

plaintiff United States Attorney?

ia/ iH~>

(j.) WheHier if is structural error When Tud^ie Seaknaht ordered Sullivans

psycho therapist/patient medical records wer Suthvans ejections when

Judae Seabriqht released all of- those records fo Assisfeahf United Ste^f

A+kn/irH^/ / piztuiz.+ttt'S tX

.<dvid<d1i2 vex I ervCV' and arounds for reversal undeir

Jdfteev. Redmond, SI8 (A.3. i. ( FKtcO?

frectfihci psychiatrist without any vvaiveir or

CjaAee v. Redmond > 518 U.S. ± Cco^

aaarnst her ultimately leading fo fke

ConsMUwal R^lds C6tvuduK%l eriayl 1*^

isconduct- vvhen he changed

C4) Whether Judge Sa^bhght er^aao

Sullivans plea bargain fovnth

entitled Sullivan 4o Withdraw

<S) Whether 3udge SaalaW-^nt had j

Sullen?

VtofaW Sulliva^ s<k4h A^n^Cov^^l

h.^

M XthTXX

gjqVits to £ett-~repves&ntatic>n When if was revoked

id fine heanr^

February 4-, 2022?

rq.) h/hefher fhe*e is pn?secuh>h^l misconduct u/hen

t Mtomew C^USA") Aetecczx Ann (feHmuMer and

toy-falsely rep^hng 1W over IOO tnal cou r+&«l

Judae Saalonciht were arand jun/ subpoenas

v^ho/A

fed.R.ciSn.P. Rule H, ZSU S-C-.^^i

Due P»vces& R-^hte.?

Speedy Trial AeT and

Marte-Moicfhevscn

RfU1 A^end^1*

18 U.S .c

328g.

tX±X l<0 WheVVev disWc*-

erred vi Ueepin^

counjel on

l«J«'

representation nfler- loc>tVi Counsel barhee and SulVivzxn -filed nume»'tn4s

Mo+ioiae> fp withdraw counsel as there was m conflicVc4- interest''

As Sullimn sued counsel in c.w>l case no. CV- 12-OC4^4— <TMS-_&T_

<612 in-104-. EOF Klos. I4d^» IGIS, IS 13-, \Sl^ ? 1523)?

6 VO) Whe-theK district- court should not-have used ^nsjuitted covtc5uc%~

would be ^jone} which wcis not -true?

(jO Whether it v\>us & violation of 3uHivewk»

Fifth Amendment Due Przxes*

Constifuticmdl teujh+s when CTudje Seotlohjht applied a \0a5e level 2_

-for Sophisticated me^n5 under U55G

<Z1£ Z'lofz). should nob have

been cap pl eel #s itwns strci^jht fomtard depc>&rt^> c4 State

refund checks for \M\rc fruud , when ifw<a& net ccxnpl iaated or

intnccite rind \Jud<j© Sst=tbn^ht decided it vveus soph isneza-ted ?

6 ix) Whether it & a breach oV contract 6 pled rgreemeut)acceptance of

Vesponsibihty for -four counts -Sullivan would receive- a Z-level of

2-level rote ,^,

«^ofm,nor under

4 should not- hui^ loeen^ppi,^ ^SuUivexn neverem^ed

in divedan* ) comnaunding , encourauihu} ihtimi chW counseHth?^

W>r^^i<d?C4/lr,n^' °r SoUoi+'iKi3^ m.rux in reldh^-fc ccun-fS'

S-wlonght ewoneously Ccmpuhahcn cH-defendon^

M) Whether

y vVhich resulted m oi enmineal history cuteciory c4-u

h*y QSsesaSivicj 2 Criminal history points -fz>r Conduct- which

did not result- |h convictions cind caddrhon^l Z pointe -for keunq underJ^e sentence Vsteitus pomteW-H^ hnte Suiting

Committed her -federal ottoase -for ^teh she wevs sentenced < Pc£..

pQyCi^rotphs I St-141 ^md tSZ-CECPbJo. 142>V

(IS) Vx/het-her JTudoys Sezabh^ht ewed when it- applied a. Z-level obstmdacm

Ot justice when Sullivan never wi?is Convicted c4 or pled out- te>

obstruchcrh o{ justice ?

vimmci

C(U>5 Whether ^Tudcje Secibvi^hf ewed im owzardinj nesti-tutaoh when

•».

j czirjc^ eCTUC «TlOr I Tl'fcXklC

Ves-fifu+ienh c\ due pnxess v'iotahon which he granted in 4ewof c&

^joremmenf estaidt^hi^cj -the iresfrtufion camoun^ Sullivan hud do puy?

Liste op forties

AU parties appear in Hie <x^phon oVU^ecASC on-H,ie cover paae.

pelaAed Cages

UiMqJi States Cfcurpo^ Appeals -for'Atae- UinVIn Circa iV

oi_

(

r\ ■

°taAc& Ch^cP Cxsurp(^ Vto.4)r

Cl.S.C,^Z2-55

United States bistacd" Court Case Klo.-fctf CnmimlCase V- l^-cr- 0QIQ4--ms - KJl

TMri ol Contente

C^vAiov^ 'tetaV_________ _____________ _____ _1

Juusdiohon—,--------------------- --------------------- 1

ConshHrhcnctl and Stedutoi/provisions Involved— 2.

GfatensM- oV tee Caf^_________________3-40

Reasons -fun Glinting -Hie Wot_____________ 40

Condu & i on

I index Ao Appendices

\PpST>di/ A________ :__________ _ ______ ttental ta 2_£ U.5.C>feZ2£6Moho»

E?y United Stetes Gour^<4 Append

{zv 4Ane NimWi CAvt/UiV

AppsndiX B___----------------- —---- - ----- 2<2 u .S c . 2Z55 Medion4r>

United States CXs+rtal' Courf

-fcr t-tamVn Opnion -Denial

Appendix C----- ----------- ------------------- 2g U.s,C.§ 22S5 Motion-to

United States Ccx_xrteo£ Appstd

-forUie KJin-Un Ctrrtai-t

klo. U A4--co 4f4-

Tgflate- o4- AtiUio/ ihtss CAed

Mum bear

J^vFfee v. Pedrnoncl, SIS U.^>. 4.6144G)

Rsretta v. Calif^^ 422 U5. Sog( 1^45)

Merkle v. iA/i^gms, 4bS U.S. |^Cm4)

th T, lb

F .3d T-IzCqtb Gr. 2£>&)

^V. Lou. :

af'fclS F ad to^C^Cr. 20(0)

wk,

U,S'^' ‘*8 S.O-. (Scoffs)

3dGr. HA4)

v • fe**d >

Umied 54k>-U^-iz

BUfeker z.

33,

Lr» re F-, j 1 * .

re FCkd Mo-fcr Co. . Ito p 2 1

U”iteCv sull,'4w'

Mo-

c H.s. Dtsfn'cF CmrF U^wnFi)

Weired

UsZ l S«lh^«> CR-tJo. <^-00.04-JMS- kJM

vu.i, D^HteF CcurF Ha<v«i', )

An<kd

^•+ed<SM^v

M b

fc48

/SiF3d^C^6r.m^

Un<4ed Sinks u

fi?

’J 249 F

q 53

20(1)

c^ ‘^44)

5|<o

Zfe V l'Si?4' F3c) 4"

^"teteU

2 v

UnijT^L^

Skks V

' ^U.s.as^^)

F. 2c\ SSz<

Bmce,

iqqz)

5,fo

v. Dej^

S F. 3d

v' PQ’,&I

F',,ss<^^^>

SWeS”r’ A,o=’lc=’ - SandMxt,

\^b)

F. 2d 5=HCA*Ck.

Un.Z3 ZT \HOn3 >

F- 2-» ‘041 C<WCS. 2OH)

v'.

&O3^

• lASo;

enxGi k Mew Vouk , 423 u.s. Gl< \^5)

lM4ed 6Wss v. Hernandes ,203 F.3d G14 (^Gr. FW)

n<^ s^4es v. F|an^^

Michigan v.

U.S.25^ (Hs4.)

Mosley, 423 u.s.qG(

Filson, @=tG F.e,d IIISC^Gr. JkOlS)

leihtn^hinci ^xxlliv^n v. United 'Sicfc, , Ctvi ICase Mo. 22.-COlS4-Ti4s

C U .S - D 1st Ch Ha v\Ad( 'i 2.0 7-22)

Leihimhim Sullinxn v. United

C4/i( Case Ho. 2O-OO<24S ' L£k

C U .S. Diste. O. Uaw<a/» 2020}

Conklin v. Warvincjten Township, 4T6F.Supp. 2<d 4&SC2CO4)

Llw.tad States v. Iteen, goq F 2d

United

&A |q^.

1 44,z F-

22o( 5*a; lqq4)

Unite) Ste« * &k'ndAK* °>l Company 3lte F. id ee^C^af. Hta)

lavvso"" 104 F 3=1

United Stetes V taey,

F. Supp. 3d Sid, ( w ,D. ft, zcm)

Johnston v. telly, ?O8 F. Id A14C 2d Cm !4Sfc)

leitewtena Sul|ikx„v. Rustam terteo, Q'viI Gn^eNo. zz-co<te4-lEv

CU.S. Oust-. Ct. Uawat'i 20272)

Cuyterir. Std|lvton, 444? U.S. 3£>5 (ftSo)

Stockland v. Wastencjten, 4^ u.s.^sC l^&4)

Stetes v. te+u^?

United Stetesv wil>

42*5 U.S. 4ys CHW

r? .

\ P

dloCdlh q/.

'-’IOITCS.V. Williams

., .,

2072II <r A

<^*•3 uthr .

^.7022.)

ApP- LE*^

Stettes. V. Montetnci XSO p

T.rici/

...

Wf^Q.

I-24 U.S.iCvg'g.q-)

v. StlFone, .34,1 u.s. aiA< Hfco)

UnHed S-Mesy

n‘

rn Ev

v. ISr1/ i7°F-

United

United Stefas < M^rhtet-^Ofe=*

}

I‘1:M'>

DiaZ M«n=

‘VK‘'lde'B' hlo ;!->- 6lO=IZ<'e-teGr 2023)

Wensra’

FI2W IOtt^ 2OZ3) ■

a^ne, zoziu.s.

2o^3'-,

^{30, ^r.2d^5(^af ^)’Odr i'lW'V

12?

\2>

—

Ffores

\Z>

2.^ F.

T-zp p , . .

^ 2001)

Timte XrZ

Nasteg^ ,4s

CWoll

ta-

i*+

IH-

31 ^2024)

United Stefas „. Fi^jjp ?i?

41i u s

’ ^4- R 2d 6?G>T

iu>

<W5S)

i^TS,)

lu?

Ona?mxn ,. unite, state, 56s p zd

United Steites v. Hernande^ 263 kid Gl4 (^-fa-Ctr. KW)

F.Ld Wt*’,. Rqo)

XteXX

><’-« F-2d T45(w,. I.

XZvZra'

t t

ctn exine)

h n* . G+n^ V. ^bkin t c\o F. 3d 3^2- C4tfaz>n idA(s>)

United isr^u.

M ■ ,

nervy; (O p

1003 (3d Or. W2»)

^nnu^ i^s F. 2<d 1054 C3d CiteiqqoJ

,SF^ "^aihCn^)

unitt

— -■ -

United Stefcs

^'nTF2d F-2d ^4? (

C.VJ^Z>

f . 'eBPSd'3ls(H'a'.l‘H0

United -Steitesv.

United

United states

<SWes vv

^»e>)

^4<M S °®* c+'

-Supp- (

un"i? stjr lp,Ux/ 14dz F ^PP U

United .State, J’

1^i4T a,. Wll.)

Unite, ^ 5S,Z 3

United State, tetee

(

U™^ Stales » ktate ,' ’ p-Ad SS4 Otfa

2O|3)

< U.S . Oite. c+

f52'2' “ S' °isF LEJUs 2.23120

United .State v

6u.s. ote o XZ'

‘n.ted State XX a^'

* • V V ill

2O,?}

U S' °'^ LEV.-, Ia

—-.•»_

^■5 D^.Cf. feY

LEXL3

un- ted

V , Tohnscm, 202-2- u,s.

•2o^>

^Wes+e»-n Dls.4- rd- ia/~

L&xis WZOCfo

Un.ted

‘V‘^oy^'^^22l)

United State

LI X Z^*'

Z’3’ '!OZ2- u s Otok Lexis X^SO^ai-. Wilt

°^'

P°,<aKi'

F 4B3 ,W ( "*<* 20^>

F-3d +S (oc. c. 2^)

us-App-Lcx,s tlsoc1 (aa c,>

CO.C. Conn. ^h1^J°ZZM S' OtSt

lfcSd4S

A»n V.Spence, Zon u’s. Wdr. Lexis 2.2^^

(U.S. Oiste Cte H.y. , Der. i^.Zo^

United Stater. Copte, 2O2X U.S. texts ^^£>(^0^.2022-)

Uni ted Wes v. tedlon, So R 4B0 32^ (.3^/. 7^^)

FOtc v. Dover, 4&3 F.dd

2003}

UniH^Shter. Ookfch, W4 F. 3d 344 Cl^Gr.ToioJ

u^s!^ V Martines- Hermndea,No. li-BIOTicgtbG^zozs)

V- <JoifiS?Sqq

lOA^F C I(ti2 Gv^ A^O)

United sS-UHes v. Donn,

R 2d

(C(gQ

United Ctetes v W°Hn/iote Ewnte , 2O2Z U.S. App. L^cts 3302-I

C3!^C4r. 1022}

InTho Supreme G^urf- o4 Uie

. U hi led S-U^les — PeHfocviev'~fon

Wnv o-f- Cerhovznni

P-ys ^. n^<^onw 1&SUC

Pehhow

^juctacmenl' below.

C^imo^i^ feeiovv

FS^ rases fr™

. •

’ v ’ -vcotcnzii Gsvrfe

e Opinion ob Hie Untied Shales

^ppendik A

4o4he pe+i-hon and

<c4 oippeeats ^ppts^rs z4

is unpublished.

AW^IXB

-fo 4L

-Hne ps+itien ztnd <^> repcHed zip

~L^£r;, ^,llhJ"1 ’ 2023 « s 6^- Lexis «X4-I8,2025

2-^ C b. VW; Apri I 50,2025).

JuK'scttchon

Fz>r onses.fvom •feztetcJil CDUr’fe-

The dette on which Hie Uni+ed S-fedes. Courbet- Appecde.

decided my case me Auzjud- lS,zo2-5.

A-hmely

pe-Thcvi -foy' veV^Qann^ was dented by Hie' Untied

States CourbcP Appeals on +Vie -following dale'- September IT, 2O2St

and a copy ob-lbe Orde^ denyin^ rehearing appears al~ Appendw A

The junsdichoh c4 -this Courte ie inv-ohsd under

<^S U-S.C. 3 |Z54(1).

ConshWirenul and SMutory PrpnaOTQs Wolxed.

Puae^Mo.

U.S. Cons-h £ AtrnendmenF

US. Ccmsf.m Amendtmenf

U S. Consh. 207 Amend menF

U-S. Ccns+.JZT Amendment

u )yi

1 v

fed. R C*q rn P. Rule G»

Fad. R. Cnm. P. Rule U

°l

Fed. R. Cnrn. P. Rule IZ

fed. R. Cnm.P. Rule IT

I* U sr - & tO2SA

<0,7-^

l€ U.S.C.i, e>2_£8

2^u.s.C.§ IU>S4-

gc,

^?-

X6U.$.C.§ 465

States Sentena

GuCdel (ncs £«. U(SSGl uy

(

USSG § ZE>±.^-

5CT.1. ±

USSQ

USSG1 g aT1..5

ussg,

§ a.n.4

USSG §

3E1.1

Uss^^

3B1.4

,Z,ZO

U.SSG£

3C1.4

<2>1 14

USSG§ 3Fi >L

USSG§

3D1.4

{d’H

Ussg§ <5cjl. 4_

Ann. 4 ac: 3S -JoQ^)

N.J. UarTju^^ O<^n mili 2^^

12>

« Luu; OichoYiary GO2? Cl^h

SAsdeMenV of- Case,

(ssu e whether (V »S structural ewor when a dtotnct- courhjudae ordered dcderctanf

psychotherapist'/pahenV privilege medical records over defendants objections

then rcdmsed allof- thc^O records to Assistant- UhifodStofes Attorney O'AUsft')

is a 'Structural error and grounds for reversal under Jdfto°, v. Redmond. 515 tl.5.1

(HAG?)? Vos, tt is structural ex-w1 and grounds for reversal.

Over Doferdcxnts C'SuUivcczV^ objections , Tudge f. MidhoeX S«a.lohghd£wJutoo

Sefctbrghf !) ordeied Sullivan’s frcahrig psychotherapist-patient" vecowds from

her toautirg psych iato&t, Dr. Ethan Pien on January ^(2OAi Cectmo. \O4S). On

Febru<5u>y 2~i 2021

\Q52-J, Or. Pen delivered to Judge 'Sea b^ghto the vegueshc

irnedic^l records, then after the court conducted its m cavn&ft review^ <d«dronicalt

rvsrv-nttecd the redacted medical records -to Dr. Renoau Kennedy via email fRo^Uo

-K2SZ). Then m an email dated March4, 2021, Or. Renoau Kennedy attached a

compsnhcncy report- which she transcribed 41 pages op Sullivan's psychotherapistpa henV records onto and electronically submi-Hcd these records fro Sullivan t Jackje

^^bnZj-ht-j stand-by counsel Mr. (Richard t-tehe, and adversarial counsel A-UsA

Pefaeec-cr fed matter Then on July 13| 2024 hcanng CECFNo. Ildh)^ TudgefethigVrliread Onto 4-hs recovd Sallivainb czmrt-orotensd psychotherapist-patient privilege-'

records dated Av^ust-^l, 2ozo fSulli vgm Reco»d^s~_ OlgQj thctV <Salliran objected to

him ordering C ECE- Mo. (Z4s>?> -fvzznscnp|- hearing op July I3(2O2|).

According to Jaffee y. Red mo nd , -the United •Stories Supreme Cerurh

recount£ed 11 that confidential communications between a licensed psyrhoHveropisV

and her pa+ehts m -the course of dfevposi^ or -tteat-menf- is protected -from

Compelled disclosure. VTatto^ v. Qednxcmcl , bis U.S .4. ((qqc?). The Court- left-Hie

exact* parameters of- the privilege fc> future cases . See Id . cit 18 . Xn Sullivan's

case she never authorized nor waived any privilege' to her psychotherapist —

patient records , -thenetoe , the issue is appealcilole .

LS^UQ. Whether* stand- by Counsel , Mr. Kjchand tloke- violated Sullivan^

v^ht to self- repvcsentoiticrh when he filed a Motice of- Intent Motion withoaV

Sullivan's consent which afkded Sullivan’s defense ( or her "control LovcvJ the

Oraaniacihon and content ” ( McKaslde. v. Wiq^tns} 4<oS U.S. lt>8, ITT, lo4-S.ct-.‘T4d-,':WI

L.Ed 2d 122.4 n.S/'l^g^-) and his participotion Undermines Sullivan’s RgmsHa

nanfcs as if- was done “over defendantobjection" ( United <S>l<gttos> y.lorg , 5et't

T2<SCsli) Qr 20 loXinterna I cjuofcdicms and oifahons Om rHetd ) and defendants

Wfcfe

EardUiUaUfcmia, +»

Which improper denial o-TUiaf Vg^^mrraF be harm less? Yes, d-is stordural

error , and grounds tor reversal .

Sulliranfe. cdnsaifo a ffeetot Sullirant, defense-

psirhc.p^o* underrnlMfes Salliva^ fcretfc, v^ghte «s

wai deneo^ Sallies

Objections.

According to .McCoy r Lmii.'Stzima , 138“ S.Gt. iSDC>(2c>^s) the ctdmis&icrn o£ the

notice o{- intent- by stord-Uy counsel load to (revealing and admissions* of

Sulliv&uto treating patient—psychothera py records ftiat blocked Sullivans

i]ght fo male funda mental Choices about her own defense. Id. Tn Sulliverrto case

Gi'ie never authohzad nor waived any phvilege- allowing Standby Ccunsd todnend

Hoke to -file the notice of (nlenfa- tha-r lostcPto the retoas©

Sullivan^ pafaent-

psycho therapy privileged records j therefore- ^the is&Ue to appealable.

Once ''Hie ent is already out-of-the bo<g)

m^y not be possible- to get it bacto.

,n ^^-fr-Htoker y . Wood tod , 3d( F.3d 3-15, 3-IJ-T-IS Cqw>hrg Tn r«> frwd

(IO F. 2d ^Sd-j^d Cid Gk. IAAJ)). Agqih? Sullivan did nd author ae the retoaso of

ber -treating pa fa ent-psych© therapy Records -from her treating psyohiabisf.

See EC^Mo. it 5^ Pagr. intt 1^1 A2. .

Therefore, 5u.Uiva.ns conviction should he vacated (as it was stvuctuva I error

When District CaurA Ordered Sullivans heating psychotheraptoA- pxhent recovdi

Over' Sull trans objections #nd shared it vviAn (Government which Was used

ggainst Sullivan m subsequent' heannds and sentenoina by both the 6 cud and

Ptourrkft*- Government.

1U_. Is&je.. h/idu.’ it was a substantial right- ewo« when Sulhva>i did not agree

to proceed With her change of plea by video tor United SlaW. ,, -s.,11.^^ C^Uo.

^l-CCOAh'TMS?

Tt was asubsfaxrvhal rjghfa enur when Sullivan did not agheeto proceed

wiffa herchange- o+piea by Video -for Llmfod

v. •oullivecn f OP-Kio. g.l-OOCRG

TUs and Sullivan should hav® been able- to withdraw her- plea . On AugxsF 1°,

Judge S^bnod made his own order m an a Hem pt to

Substantia I right* violation tnat Sullivan did not agree to proceed with a change

of plea by video for United States y, Sul It van t C^Mcx 3-l-CQOlh-JMe-KrM CSee

ETFMn 4?) on July 20,202^1. This vs <tn order" wrAton on Ai^uste IO, 202-1 j Bit hk?.l5

Which was done ».2 d^y^ atfo-m Sullivan Ailed her motion to withdraw her plea Sullivan hare shown prejudice -from -the used the? video and -telecenfensncto

dun

pleapas she would not Inave proceeded with hergaill-y

appear (n‘person ih the dwstried" ecrurt" made more aP

detailed findings -for fahG need ot-Aelecontoence (Sec Hnitod <SAatos v.Domninaue*

Easnrtrz , 542. U .S. 14,8S, 124 S Gt. 2S2>S, is=n L.ud 2d lSJ(2co4) "The point...

enquire whether the terror]. . would (nave made- the dtleience rcauued

by thesfomdard cd reasonable pvobabi lity... '*) as on July 2^,2021 CtCFKlo.4) ,

Sullivan -ftfod a Motion to Withdraw her plea toefere- Judge Saatendht^, order

on August 10,2024 f which occur trad II daxyis after Sultoar -fi led her Motion to

Withdmiw her pleaswhich violated her substantial rfghto? and Sullivan

Should have been able to withdraw her plea This C&urtshcvtld order AhaV I

should b© able to> withdraw/ my plea .

JEL^d^Wr-dto" Itoevvixsgudtcial MscoitalacA" vfren Judcp- Ssafow^hA ^bangad

5ulliran’& p iQ3 bargain

Hie bench WifhauA Sullwavto CUTlber^ a\n^

entitled ^ullwan to wittadveiw her plea baraam?

On October

EcFMo. 105 ct CR. Ho. ^l-OOCglte~TMS--k-il(\4j their vu%s plain

evrorWhen Judge ^*ateight made changes "te (W Accepted plea tewg* <h which

4he Court Will'S mot a pearly ft) and |n* the process vlegated Fed.R.Cnm.P. Rule U&)

and Sullivan^* Fifth Amend ment Due Process United ^Sfcrks Ccmstitutumal Rights.

Judge Qsatehght mode changes to the'fcr felute " (^ee Hl D tot. Ct. Case Mo. ^rdOt".

ECF Mo, 1203 PageUp (M3g» 12A4O> Iz44l) witheutttee consent ok Sullivan and an

Agreement made between Judge 'SdsbnghV and the Government, which the Ccrurt

le Hot' even a party to the contvadj even it Uns ca&e 'Seems benign involvement b/

the CouH-j |-|-is a violation ok kule life Xi) and Sullt ran^» Fff-Hi Amend msntbue (Access

Rights. United States y. Gonzales- Melchor. h4g f. 3d

2OhYholding

Hint Rule UteXi) ©dablvshes. ’Such a bnglit-"line rule -finding ntjudicfal misccvduct m

Connexion With a plooj proceeding constitutes plain error and entitles the detected"

+o withdraw' hi«sguilty plea even 'it the evrov vs identified for the -fivsttirne cna^^ed J

(Internal Citerhons and<jucfcrtw& omitted'). The Pjule^> strict precaution agame>t

judicial involvement" in plea negotiations is a safeguard against- the vT'steoh

Cohenstcm > 0see Id, which is present even incests, >Seerningly benign lnvo(veme»^4'l,£,/

accepted and it- there is oi pron&icm that-vs mualid, the

Hie court-. Oncec? pls-,

entire agreemsnt" mustetee clisvegavded and requireCtbedefeidanV] and the

govennniemt -fz> begin the baigaining over again . United Gtzates v. BameS;S5 F 3d T34-,

°l4t

iqqc,). In United-Stevtesy.Mukai. 25F. 3d ^53^

C'T^hCiv. l<5lcl4-)/ "itCourt later finds the disposition in Hie p|®a bargain olge^t'icnalde' it should r^t iedu.ee

~Hit> Sentence Unilaterally tn such ca6t^, buhvatker'ShcMld withdi^w its accephmee'

of- the plcn agrterreritinternal citations and ^juoteitions omfiled.

-^-n Mukai , tee court held that thecnminal Hxlcs permitted thetvted Court te

Accept or

^o|

modify, ttieagreevnent^ and the trial Courts sentencing was

limited by the ggteevnsnt. Which in Sullivans Ca6e Judge Seda right interjected

himself ift a plea and unilateratlly changed the "fbr-teiteiine'Hsee Hl Oist. Ct. Cm

^se Mo. H- 104,

^Ip

(7oa ,

IO*IZ43K. 12440, 1^44 J Without the consent

oteSullivan and an agreement made between thetenrt and the government, "Courts

Art

^nhite

fenmet a plea agreement," United States v-EllLs, (a4t F. 2d 41b

T-L2010' ~lV'e

aCCG& Cr retect a pl^i tfgteemed" In ite

Witte wtateL

t0?

*wHiohty H> simply vetect the portums otHe aatsevn^^

Witte whicte it -finds fkalt. Muteai ^t 2GF dd

M=d-te, ^P.Supp zd^T^Ck 2^,)

’

£7

11^

J?. v

United^.v.

m«st tried- Hie pfc, ^reement oralto^a deS^F-toL‘glesm=^-=’««'+

plot, Judge- SetttorigM-ISfa)-(g>te^rth^ wiK1

plea stated Abe -following w’Vi<e?-V» ^o rem merit breached the ple« o^veevnent <oc tticy did

not ^vve Sullivan the forfeiture avnowAr on °'f' before my pien was signed evercfaou^

they load one -Hnere^pre aoremment did not Uphold -Hue pl<sta ^ajteemerrf and Sullivz’-H

eJncnA^ \navc been able Ao withdraw kier plea. C6ee United Stalos * &UU6& ,2rW? F.2d 552

5«!5t>554(yW^Ctr. I'A'AZ) Dtobiet court iwdncS are. pvt>lnilo’ded Arum pctr-frci patina ivi pl^a

, Ahis loriaht- hne rule ry,fni rm?ed dbe nsto c+cc^c* protects 4be ‘^nV

oV the judicial process (a nd preserves Ahejuchys \rnpartiality.

liAevzd tervn ofo a plea nareemenAj" See at\ec> lAniled states V

Courts

£lVis», ^41 F. 2d All ( 4H"

C^V^Cxv. 20(0. ©reaches otplea agreements implicate Atoe coi^AAtuteonal^Uarantes-

due process. Uni-led Stefov Ma FuenV?^ 8 F . 3d 1333, \^2^C^Gc. W3).

When a. p|ea d^rcemenV includes promises or agreements Icy Abe governincnAj such

promises or agreements "must be tuJfilled. "Sardoteello > 404 U S. at ZC=>2--

Mudr be

foittnlled ’ is to be construed liberally and stnctly. Plea ^reem^ ace undevstosd

Usincj the ordinary rules cA cocAtadc law. &rown v . Poole,, 33A F. 3d (155,

Ctr. 2003). The Court employe obteohve standards m which Ate partes? reasoraUe

beliefs control. fSkEkm, 33T F.3d

USq-f^. As Abe d^Ator oA Atoe freement( the^oremment betans the responsibility -for any lacto oVcAariAy^and ^irnb^uiAies ^nsCOnsAvued in the defendanA-^ Ahvor. Uni led GAztAes t Cope, 5^A F.3d ^AA^SP^tfaGr.

, United Gbxfasv, fianco-Lq^ ;.5is F. 2d ^EA^^C^^r. 2002-). StncA tomp'i^^5

(^ required. United Stolen v. Uftredra . lto>8 F-id 1220, (230, l234C^Or. W)lA).

RajUihnj GinoA-compliance ensures Aloe teimc&s m dhe pie?! barg^>v’u^^ 1X20

process and AAnus protects. Abe udeejdy oA- Atae ^-nmincal ^jushce syeAenn id.M^ndahnzj 'sSfvVct Compliance tflso l'encoxirac«s ple^ loaraaintncj t an es^erd'^

COrnponenA

tone admini^hon nA 1.^4^ Alcala - Sandiefe. 6^ R~ 3c<

Cinlematl quotexAran rnctttos, omiAted). TVensteve, Sullivan e>Viould have been a

Widtodraw Iner plea fbr a W andjud" reason.

3T. Issue -. Whether tn Cnmmztl Ca^ Kin □.i-QooqG 4he»e is a jurisdictional detect Aer

C°hnt A oh tte, (nbrrnaticm Ar> conndA Gulliran in ndaAicrn o-A l£U.S.Cr% IQ2?A(^XA)~.

^lo+ual innocense Ceqfki^. icsi«n) 7 VeSj there was a jurisdictional ddertj andkediQnisa

InMie hoannaoA February Is,20x3. Count 1 of Cnminal Case Ho. ^l-pcmu-JMS feiled

Ao setfijrAh anotoense as Ao aa^rarexted identily AhetA as Sullivecn had pennis&<oh-fs

^p®n up a CorpctoAo credi A cardTror Ate still tuncfaemina ncn-proAiA Mobil© Natire

awaiian HestUb Inc .("MUMU ") bythen chair levon ondi f5ee raseno. IT-lo4i

~^U,'

u — pern'l&&‘Cn1

?a>> >

oi-Julu 20,3024.

Lsvc^>^i te!o^«p4<x«!oX.iedire«»afer

detect. Sullirdn did not

abcn^F Levon Oha?s

Identify or make any misvepresenteateerb ini/oli/th<a Levonidentity as

Chair'ote MIMUU . (See In re beach , 2022. e».ntor. LJc5is 3oc&( N.KA. u.s. List. Ct. Oct.

where foecicto vvas -found do hare authority to charae axpsn&es on ctediA

W corpora-ticm). ^See ealso United <Steries v. Alena , ^d^F. 3d IO4<?> lOSI 6^C*r

aow> Whens defendant did net stefcd or

^bent< ^Hly ^nd thus dd ncA

1028 A. The olojetticm that the indictment fetiVs to ctiogean cdferise,,

Vi etale

m t-hto case, i in-formaho^ is not waived tey ai cjuilty plea. United Sfates h Meg,cb*yY>'>

6?2Xc F. zd ®O3, Soq-Gio^gth^ (|thG>. l°l£o)< relying on Uennci v New ^/crr^, 423 u S

kl) fe2-(s3 j 4fe L. Ed. 2d 14S5 t TbS.Ct. <^4( C ITTE?}}. Therctore j there- IVAS> a^unsdietiorw

defo-t- tor CfiUntJl c$- cnmin^' Cci6e.no. ^21—OCCTlb — JMS, rind should Vse dismissed

^Stte- Whether it was a victaticn oh SullivanF Pro 3e ndht to selh-teprtseTlerlicv)

Arne* merit when it was revoked lay Tudae Sstdonakit th Hie Virrinnq ot

ekvuavy 4-, 2022. It was uncoreHtfuhoral to icroke? -Strata. prDSe status.

On February 4, 2022 (EGFNo. 4Tt Cr.Case Mo. A|-QccRfe>)6uli.'rcui<s pw se ncjht

to vepcs&d- UerselF was revoked by Jud^c Saahhcjht, This ell btgan when SullivanS

attorney oh Mr. Witham ttarvison Was taken okher cose- because^ ^oreranvsnF was

$0«<vj to Gall him as witYess(See HI bisk.Ct. QteeHo. 14—104-f ty^Mo HZ, 00-28-2018

Moticni -fo Oiscpxdity Ctfunfed}. today) w& cause©- (twas to delay Sullivuto CAse-

government Could bnin^ piecemeal ihdicHnento &u II iron (<3 more) amd

lofcrmaticm . The i<ujlto to counsel like khen^ht to seltovepnesentohoii ? is premised on

^sspast toy Hne indt nclual <and cimi l<ar|y is eitoer Irespedcd or dented irresprckivo

(|q^e h^xmless, O(< prejn^^^l nature oh ewtrr. itokdslde r IVi^gjins}

U.S. 1^8

€>ullivzm was denied both the r|cjht tochoice ot Counsel > William lfei/inso<’(.M>ho

Sullivan retained) and her r^htto selt-tepresentahc>n whioh is guaranteed Uy

'Sixth Avnendment to t-he U.S. Constitution and guaranteed by statoto^ the nb|ht

to conduct defendant^ cw defend. 28 U.S.C.^ it^. United Stales v.Hemande»/'2g5f

3d Ul4(4th-C4y icnTT)'! United ^States y, Ramzan ,4^.5 U.S. 25^ (2b£-^0^84); that

the Sixth Amendment ri^ht to counsel oh choice "velfctfe constiftxWdl protection

toe defendant -free choice independevrt at concern tor the oloicctive toimess ot-the-"

____ •

camoi Us.ham.ias,.

_.f

JLU

u - «l-24fl,^uohMd, tyj^e v, Wtoare 4fcSU.s.ius,i^

enoual^^2^ The reason Oud^e Saabn^ht revdwed SuUiv<an)s pro se^totus w^is inoh

SlOI^ < In

C^ltfpm'tq ; supra; 422 U.S.cd- *334 IS htdhly leAerant as ihu/as

chotc& i<s ^r°'Sei ’Statos that was tevoked^ -the thuust ot the- feretta is thork Thebroser

TVain^y

Ciavninoil defcncianto choice > ibis no-hthe Tudaeorthe

^iaah

1 r

dnd

Bxarhe^,

Ver> *

Ct- u

Scons woetolly -kzdush toa iudae^. IF to cUezar tn^t CTudae^

a (z‘sl^'rr| toat Sallimn could not <\o tom/ard represstina’<^,s<dt

to accept repesentoFtnn ( vVhich th Hits case/ was (tostom

(Misrwhfe’

cast reieoledl Anv/

Votontory detosidX

pvoleehch andauRiJnk

V. Uosto/; 423 U.s.^J lOg-OTj 4b U .fet ,2dl3l3fqkS.GF 324

individual h, (ncompeto^ we hare in the

a defendant ttom hto intelligent

vvorthy oh con-tototcml

' WVieHie»r Judge- Ssabhgtte ho<d judicial bictsand should have nasusad

htmeelf teum 6uU>va.n^ ca$e when Ivo vead ^fNi2.4a of Un >ted. Stated y, Sutl< van

Cg_ Mo . I J--QOlO4-<Vt45-kJM . an expaite Sabmissicm astekh^ whole CfUx^

Sullwan and ohangn^ eallivahb pl^ as if vnakes if

Government Ca&

tfppsar Judge Gsatonghf is (n cah<xA& wifh Pten nfate GoiemnenV?

Judgc<s ^should noFengaae'lri pteft dtecus&icYis vwrehange grpteftonce if is

entered ivrte* as if mak^, i-f^ppear as teougLi hetetetlarg one-side over the dW

he is In alliance or partnership witte -the Govemmsrif, appearance c>f

impropriefy. TViife is nof teefivskteme tele had been done- t ivi ECFMo. A^} 4he

Goi-evnmete hod no problem -filirka an expstrte SutoiniSCXOn oste -tee Whole cniy of

4heir CCtee againsf oullivan, which Judge Stsabnjhp read and n&/&ir assorted ‘Are

C^seto another judge. GSce Echavorwid v, Filsen, 8Tb F 2d U18 £T^Gr. 2018) Judge

‘Should have necuseteiimself -from tee- ca<se-as-there- was 4 risk-cf teas). e>cySuUivarXs

Ccmriohoh 'Should be overturnedWhether -there was (Vosecuteviexl WlCsccnndad' wnen AUsA ftet mutter and TPS

Mil l

^snf -falsely hzpvesented teaf C^&r IDO hied courf Subpoenas issued b/ Judae

feabvghf was ^rcind jury subpoenas which & an <ahuse- of process fSee aft. Mq.

OOIQ4-JK4S- kCTM> yfPMn. UofeCCtk Kios. ^2-QOIS^- Tms A 70- Or>9^-g-1 Fiz.)7

Since February 15,20 (T> (□ovenmenf had beentr^ueshn^ tn<d courF Subpoenas -foaseasaj

irweshcKtWn Mechanism in viotafch dfed-E_-Cnrh. P- teitetlGSee.EcfKlo. 14-2X-Z Otdavzxfion

Of Rebecca fertmuHer) knowing there- would he. no fnal and 4Vien created fate ^grand

jury subpoenas usin<g Ov&r ICO -trial CffUvf subpoenas frirrn judje- 'Sectbnghf, Judae

6fetdovTdhte. tmplioafdn in tens "tete^rand jury subpoena schema "as AcisA fertmatter

and fccnf MacPtiereon -scheme a-Heds-th® tei«messF integrity or pubtic reputerhen ofteis

CffKrf Cannof be- Undcme baf can he corrected, which ms nofbeen by Judge Saabughf

WhO was implicated In (doronmente pteidings (6ee fchauavvia v. Rlscn; 51G F.dd US

Clth q/. 1018) Judge nskef bias in deciding ussue ■ se&also 25USO S455 and

Conklin V. W/irriggten Township, 444? F.Supp. 2d 4S8C200=0). Governrrents abusegf

nvrz^ce

___ 1

i?5

■■Seabr^g Ites CiTUrf

•

r•

___ l_-_____ —

„

____ .^.lAU

which was a ^rnndjuiy ViolodunA^l See Fad - RCnm. P. Rule-Ge-;

Pule IT-; United Stete^ v. ka^n, 5©q F.2d 12T3, i2J4-d5<G^Gc I^HS);

United iS-fa-tes v,

4G2 P.Jd 220, T2^'2AC&^Cax-.

United Stettes v. Stercted

.Oil CompanyF. 2d

llfei)) and Sullivan^ Fifth Arrendmed- Ouo

.lx

Issue: Whether if Is a viotefen cf Speedy Tbal /tef and 18U.SX.S

pf-Rffl. 4 SMh fanendp^te -to Uc U.S. (Wfi-fM+wm

ad^

ne«/ cta.gp-% and broaden +be Th.rol Saperaeskrta SdtohW .n 14. forth Supasad,,^

IhcdictenenF on December 24,,2otg f

Mo. 14-?>12

60^ on ECF.K10. M-ai-Z Dedarahote oF Rebecca fertmu-Her, tee delays and number

Cf indichmente are afvibided te GovemmenF f and a detech re plea Lwngaih, tee vtobhrh

of IS

aass.did not toll <stefo<te ofo Unn itehons when changes “T

feu^i

-Superseding Indiotrncnt added new charges in Hie Foudh ^Upensateng Indidmeit.

See United ‘Sfatesy korcy, U4 F.-Supp. 2d eTdCw.D. P<s». 2OC4) j <See^ilse> United iStetesVCteWscVl, (O4-F-2d 2GO(^Gr Ws) The -Superseding indictment r^nnofimten^lly

lonxaden or substantially amond 4toe oggirvd charges.

In 1^.^-00041?-sTMS^r^Kto 4 , Governwent-felted fa bn ng charges wMw

<S>tatade' of limitations C 5 years) forcdleged Aggravated Identity Theft in vlolaticm of

Iff U ■ S .c. i<P2AA •for possession /iA&e. of-Mcr<><I security and date ofbirHn cfo

Levcm Ohai CH-en deceased Chairman of MM Uh) on a bank- e>t America cvedi-t

card application as persona I ^Juaranter on March 3,2-OIZ; in tee Fbudte ^apstsehg

Indlchnent

4q<5 <4 fg-Mo. tl—Q~>|O4—CIMS- hTM) fhenew indictenenV

and altered charges and Victims (Jacgueline Oha\, Al Miyamoto,

u ivan( Levon Ohai, fenni Takete, William keahiolalo f and Tanner Henry).

Tbene-tore,Hie FburHi Superseding ^ichnenf ^hcnUd tee_distniss«d in vlotetit'n ot

-the Speedy Tidal Ad- and l£ a AT . 32£R.

XstSue - Whether' dtetncf coiirt erred in keeping detense counsel on as legal

feprGSsnterhoh for-Sullivan after both Ccunsel and -Sullivan filed numerous mo+rchs

fo Withdraw ccunsel as Hiere te a conflict- of mteted- as Sullivan -sued counsel

tn Cavd case no. Cl/- 2Z-0Q4^4-- IMa-Pt ( CQ Mo, IT- IO4 , FCF Mo. 14^,1516, ISFF,

|52S>). Yes | Hiene was a corifl'd' o4interest- as Issued cmnse Rustem A. Barhae.

In orderte prevail on an ineffechre assistance of counsel claim loosed an a

Conflict- of- intercsfy Oetendanf must 'show "an actual conflict- of (interest- adversely

afteted his lai^yexs performance/. "Cuylerv. Sullivan, 44to U.S. 335, 350, G4L.€d. 2d

-15

533, loos. G4-. ITOg Q IQSo). The-Supreme Court madeclecir that "adverse effect* ii»

noteecjui valent- fc> prejudice. Td-ata^-m. AIHuru^k <a defendant raises an

ineffcctute d«ssi<s»ternce ofozrunsel claims tS ordindry RagUirtecl -foshoW preydice.

Jd. at 34H- 50, -Shvddand v, Washing-fern. 4GG U.S.

, SO L. Ed 2d GT4, IO4-S.

fCC ZO52_((‘TST), prejudice l€> presumed ifoH-ie allied violaticrh t<s loosSed on an

? ComPtcHef- interest, _Jx£. ^-tGHZ. As the Supreme Court explained, inaca&e

C<^fl»ct of irrterc&t] the evil if-bears repeating- is What the advocate'

finds h.n^lt Cc-mpeikd -fo refiaih

doing, hot only4 thal but d—iU*

plea ngotiaberns and sentenang process, ttelloway r Arkan«^&, 43g U.S.41G

4fO > 5® L. £d 2d 42G, ^S.Gt. UTe>( HT^)j See also United States v. Trtum.

TdrZ F. 2d 340, 345-Tt. (4-ifc Cir. 1440.

In Gallivant Ca-fie; She Sued in Oistncf Crurf of Hawaizi Gvj I Case Me, CV- 22-Cnzi/^

TMs-kT, an actual CcnHicf extef, therefore, appointment of-new ciruneel should

hare been granted . (see abo United States v. WUhams, Z022. U.S. Aa>. iTKte 2043|

(5tb 4 lltb Cir'2022-)good Cause to warrant Substitute ch of Cavn&el <si>s defendant

threatened

Ic^al aehcm Which arnstituAos a can Pi at oh intend both SulliraH

and cmmel fLuctam Ar-tarteee 4iled motiovte 4o wHVd^iy counsel C^eGteQ.104- Get

135G. 1415.143G, 144Q. Sullivan wa-£ told Icy Counsel fWtem A.

tabee 4o ^ueViim, soshedid > Sailing ccmhcha^s should becUmissed.

~XL Issue: Whether' there was juh^dtchonal detect as 4o Cgvnh 2€L as te> the fcu rth

Superseding Tndidmsn-t ( ECFvJo IS 15) When on

te a lf«eip+'

-from Caldomia GUteUmtet&i4/ cil-Monterey bayC"CSUMb^ thatwa> acceptedit

Evidence ttiat pro lead tha-t

SuUivni'i paid "Non Resided- Tuition Fct©

Which purred Sullimn did not

any law7 T^nscnptheanng date

July 2-f 2O7.2Z Egp Mr.

kAS. PH2UMUTTE12-

Pgge IO*- OSd>SS} Eof kv-> \2^£>')

i disagree , teur Honor.

ng nr loecau&e you clidnt- charge th You chaigsd a specific hsprcsenterhoh

that she did not pay m^AaAe College tei-hcn." Cid Frr Mn

teased on the aterenrantvrncd there was ajunsdioboYiol detecJ~fir< Cerunt 2A. Ih

Exparte fc^iih , Iai U.S. l,30L.Ed. S4^l, 45 s. C-t. 4Sl( 1554), tbe Supreme Ccurt Sterhd

Hs Opinion thatean indictment teurd by agvand jury was 1 ndlepensaldetethepower oj 41/16 ccurt te try petehener for thec-nme with which he vuosctiaiged •"

134 u.s. at 12-15. for th is. pvDposrhcri , " the fcain case- has never been disappmted.

United ^tetesv^tirrne.^i q.s.

teteo\ See also eg. UniAed Stertes y.

(o2G F. 2d 503; 50T( Stb Cite. IT 80 Ysterhng Abate the language ot F^.Jt--Xkuh^_P>.

t2ZbY.2-) Irequings thate teulure ojcin imd<ctev»ente te> cteruge ottense mu&te tee noticed

tey didvict Ctrurtes an Abe appellate Courts Saaspcnte)’; United States v. CAarkj4»2-

F. 2d 605,004-86 (5&Cit l^G4>, U^iArd SteAes v. Chappel, 2 to F. 2d 244, 24G

United frtedesv. Sl/icup, teO©F. 2dT5D ,5GOCdd Gr. I^44^tatihggener«l rule

that Ccurt mast notice- irdictmenAs detect ot tedu^ to chae*5. a tod era I rtteise

whether Sullivan relied on Judge ^adorght^ statements that «all of

dismissed counts would te© "GokIe" 4 she tcotea pleaf which waMdtue

Sullivan was sentenced te dismissed couMs 2-2S? 30-34, and 3G?—Gcz

Per plea agreement FTP Mo. 1203 Page 10*12421 ; the Fourth Supsrssdirg Indictmeit

per agreement Counts 2.-255,30-34, and 3C- CaO would loe dismissed andshoctld note

toe Used to determine, Sull i van te sentence- In tve’iriscnpt bean ng at July 20, 202-1 ^fiCFNc

12O4} PagelQfr 133ZG, SuUirom relied on the Courts repesaitehon upon tettegg tee

plea , Iwhi’cln uvas not true as Sulliran was sentenced ■Vodismtsssd ccrunte. that

Should have teen "Gome".

"THE COUPT: Ves ) £ mean I think- Atiatte right. So right now theve wtruld be Cd

Counts against you, hat cte course all those dher counts aregoing te be-dismissed

at Sentencing. Soyou end up with -four just like you would have under the- previous,

plea agreement".

THE OEFCMDAkIT. <5o you

Azike one count outot the superseding indtctvnent.

I tn &orY\].

UR.. Uok-f. They will all loe dismissed.

THE coutsr ’. A(i those oUner- Counts - THE OB fen DANT- Ohay. L-THECooftr’. -- vve go through with this,

gone. Okay?

A-hose Counts gd dismtedsd. TVtey’f&-

“ThE D£FEUD>4i4T : Okay , Vour Honor. "<RTHo. I24?4 Pa<ge^ ID**113^'2^)•

/ i SuUtv^^an-tnecl 4o withdraw herplea widhih Xweek ot ple^dina aailty as itwas

hoh hue, she

being ^lenced toall charges. See Mohons io W^w Pleas

kB^r Mp&, i^o, I Wt, {ACXm 1441. 140./^ 14^. 14£a 14^ z, 14*^3. igpo). merefove.,

Sulli»^m ap|>eals disKicb court fTudge 'SeabrhhO lncorp£>v?d»M ottier- charged

cind Uhckkxrged Conduct into the tan/ losses-(orpurpnses oh C^iattlnbt'g a tess

$5) 2-^^, IO(. 41 nd base level Zz wrdev' US6G § 2TL.L and % ZT£.4.The Correct

loa«e o-(kense level Cba&ed on n loss amcrunt ot^4,2SA.kfc tr<Count A-) should loe.

edher k, under 2014 USS6 §Zg>£.U^Vt) and SZftt.UnXl) /«nd CbXl) or base level

“Khtsed on the loss amount ot^4,Z52.C^ for Count 1 under UsSG

and J.T4.UB)5). The two level spixlfic ottense ac|justmen|- at paragrz’rph UO -for

failure fo leper I source ot income exceeding 4HO(CCt> under

should not have been up pl red to Count! loecause the- monetuy amount

-h> AmysSm'itt received credit-(fam the Cbitr^ Hawa.15 with

°4

far her Wio return and

l>^3.kXfar her 24911 rdwmV^’^

*4-^A.<bO ^PS(Z, ^agyaph A-SICEcFMos. 15^1,14^5,1^06). Sullivetn shaxld h«ve

been able to withdraw her plea ou> -she relied on Judae, Sewtndht^cissuvaricc^1* other ctiavzsss would he ''COME" when th^xf were-nor-

f=*

hrvX

Checks?

v; Ok

--------------

------------------

under Ccunt X did not involve, any '’sophishcated

Weresfca^ht(favv*2v<d deposits

'Sfzitz-at Hawad t?X refund

* Sullivan app^t -Hie court A-levcl

offense

phis-fioafeel menus a^> Count! dkJ not involve- any "^optiistiodod maam.

lcvJ*™

depa-ik. See United Sfal^y Mnnfa^,. iso f.m W

W Orj^) heH +Wapply)rij enhancement toemu^hna champrtaui.®

veonSnt mXt» “ JZa k

^, CC't

^epevahnn Out ot ttxse concenlmsnfeactivities Hot

ConcsaalnSt-. The \ackxs that- the ctisteb court tele

£.notesp^lkj. ^•teaferf, and

employ nd-toc^l,

Oat to Simply cav\y crut the -fyoiudulent Scheme. Ther^krre 4t~ ru, x

T^> ! detn<s. sophishc^knd COiX^lmmtae "espodaUy complex or especi«Uu

intnmte, otfense Condacf In which delibsrorte-steps, are -tken to miketbe o&se^oi

fc exte.-*, aitticuH- Ao aa«+. Conduct

.to Wd.rg «sw*so.- Awmsachcns, or

toHi, jVirtmrjh Abe usect -ficArhcMi entities ^oi-pcwte ehsfe, or oftsbore- ban

accounts ordinarily indicates sophtehcated conccaInv>ih. ’ Lp5><n <XV5, 1,

CommcnA Cn.3\ There were vicms- in tote Ca&e to Sallivarte level -should

c\ecte0ibcc\ toy <31.

\l\ZL Tssae-’. WhdVer tor Counts

A 3>5 ( dtshieh courb evred in adding 2-|evel

&px<fic oUense- adjustoenA for allesjed misvepiesentethcm AnaA Sullivan vvasadiri^

c>ln loehatA oA a chahAable oiganizafioh f which is» moA applfoalde bacacee Htere-ii

ho .such mterepressnAaAich tn connechem wiAh Ccunte TT (email Ao hamehcrmde?

Schods) pr CffunY <35 (credit application idenAtfyintj Levmi Dhai as^uaranA^r)?

fer these Couofe ( -Hiete was Simply no reliance up^n a misrepresented

Ch^ntetUI^ oiganizaTicrn .C &SF No. 138O-

-ZJLJ-S&ue-;. Whettoar Sullivan shcruld have been cyven her «5i-level deduchcn fer

acceptance ot nssponsitoiliAy? Contrary to -Hne ccmdasioh in the- Prtsevrlence &^pc>rA

0 Rsr.z9

pa»Z{^tgtph 132- | Sullivan have accepted ns&pcmsibiliiy -for+he 4

oOsng^ oPconnchoY) fhrcw^h her adnnissicmis CCnnterined in 4be< vvrrttenpkn

^veemenb and th her~cjuiHy pleads befsnre Hie 6?uH-. Sullivan denied any

dUeg«d obshuchev) a-Rer Uie entry oPhev^uilty pleas and ncAes AhrHhe

p SecuhoYi has Ocjteed HiaA <she should loe aVkJiid^l sentence cwedrl (zn<

^^epteince o¥ KSspcmsibility and -hmdy duil+y pleas. ^See Plea , ECF Mo.

^n-|f| fl AaaiAKmoiL .Sullivan meh via Videocontetence wHA)

-Hie p^terhuyi o&cer on Oe/so/zozi

’’accepted re^nsibilily AvrcommHhrg

e ins n cAteiges. PSR.^ par^^raph |Q|. See Un>ted Stefe v. M^rhne^—Henryudee

t4o. 22 SlQcizfStbQ^ 2O22>) Ahedustrich covd-daded te mal<^ any Andinas an loss

TOr accepted <4 tesponsibl lity. CECFkIos. I5S (,

veaui^T^!?0^ i

5en<ms4‘hJ ^uideltncrs pwvide> AhaA " a detenctenP is nof

volunteer , or affirm<rh veiy aami^ relevant conduch beyond ffieOttense o-Pconnohoh in Order to obtain a heductlon ... "-ft)r acteph n^

iresponsibilHy U6S6

1; ^ppl yydel^A)). United Sfedes v DicaZ:-Meneter,

F. 4-^2 I z^q( lOthQr 2Ol^>) Iteld 6oremrne»,F bn^died hhe pte=i a^reemsnh v4nen

n" ten fed to move- ferane level vcduditm under 3F4 lfv<\ Ahe tseuewas pcaenad

tor appeal. ( ecp Mne,. |

t c;^)

TviUSj. VUfcAhsr Tud^z> Seabvtejhh applied evwneously cornputerherfe. ab

defcndanto Criminal history which) resulted in a criminal history category otea tevel

HE lay assessing Zonmirial history pointe torccntod" whieh did nobtesuH-to

COnnchons and 2 pointe tor Lerna under a “Cnmmal justoe Sentence ,/a+*Hie

Aime v^he committed her fedenl oAtense tor which she was<gentenced6 Ps»K .

Ba^taphs I3A-I4I ^nd IS? )?(ECFNb. 1413).

12-

Pgrgy^h OS, -Sullivan objected 4© assess.! ng 1 pointoher criminal histeny

which resulted id g cnmingl history Category oFa level JU byu^s^ing ^chmi‘na(

history pornos in -this pavzagraph because 44ie inddento reported taste- was dismissed

and ey purged under pnxedunss setofodh in § &c?3-lj Maw&i'i Revised Stetotes a^rt

did ncFhgsuH- in a conn'ctiuh -for any crfense . Abiding -to4be> recotds-, -fbedefetobte

V\OS granted a Deterred Accepted oF Kioto ContendeFe PteaC ’■ DArtc%n May^h

AOI.X j Hie case grains! her was dismissed on April <3-1^ zotte,and expunged cm

Augusto <3 l‘ST| <2.0 Id-. (See. United 6-fates v. BoonS) ZO22-U.S. L^xis H4O(D, U.S. DisF-

Ch- torr Mew Jersey ( D. M T Octo 2St 'IO12^Qw)cA\0Y\ $&y recons idcsnohcn denied)

DdendanF was indicted th

Court sustouned olujectoenn Hotohe-assesginsd"

o-|- one criminal history poin! For his c20ij- conn'ctocrh in t/ioUdich crt N T s-tetF

Ahn.^ ^F'^dcXaYto) which was -ecpunged atoter his indicJmentoin 2010

(Cxpurvyd July 1,24724). DefencUtnF agucd 4be olOl^ inaiQjuaii^ cmvichon

€*purvp pulsate to? tone passing oFtoe Mew Jersey Supreme Ou r-ls } July 1,

j order dirtttong au-tei-notoo exputgernenFoF wanoiis wvinjuam corwirtirtts,

including 44^ defendrutofe Ctmhctom pureuantodo K|tsu>{fere)s

Xtechmil. stzdirm | nm/ Courto aare&d and £>usteimed

+r»/4;<«llo W toie

COmmi+hrg -Hie "nnsWnto o^tense while under a cninmal jushce-sentence... ",

'Storied in £x22ae; ^nd in pan^grapks 131^ 138 .and been use defends nF was

. nder any crurun&il tu^shec- seitocnrej dunna 4he icIeranF tome period^ no

itoctel

hl'Ston/ P^»nte ^hcrutd be assessed heve . Seealso United -Stetesv.

n 4^— t

F.2d

l<5ld4i)i United cS-fates 1/- j^minerdiener;

recogni 2^4 4-hJ^^^V

255

2001)+he Mintoi Graft!

"de^y’^d

+W«n

defendant

Kxord^ A5S

VBmOTed

'"nerefc'&’ s^1'^ cnm<ral hi^

pant stxn.id

T ‘>5,|P Whether H,e Cou^

M'"°’under iLtSC'

rF«ws«u

Cc7'*en^1

,4should not

ng^^CmxnPM, toMBS

enaaoed in M ,r> i,

o$znse- on oz/'zS/zoi*,? however, Sulltoxn never'

a,^"‘il'.ommild,nitS,m,a^„^ l»llfn;cUl1^)C0lmsetl^1(tK,;o,y]

procuring, or sdieit-in^ 11 a. minor in relation -fothi^ wire fourd ccunb. 14SSC3

<3 bl 4-appl- Mde4 dehn ing } “ used or a Hern pled -to use ." Neither does Count

er support foeW<Wminor in the Commit on ohfoe

See Unted ^tes^jores. 125 F-Zd i02£^^ ^D^^ud- abused te

dfsciehcn »n irnpsm ««nlo<» enhancement under US66 ^3bi.4^insr

defend for ustbaTS person of 18 years atW ina drug conspiracy hecau

the court -foiled foset -forth -the reasons for finding -th^the <2O'C^^^SI

wa& a minor When she participated in the conspiracy. See dIso Uni—*~

M i menefc ? ocxj rod

-rvrc^

------'

the defendant acted affirmatively te involve her Son t the vnere

CUicrugh for -Me enhancement-. Thereto re ( foie Court erred in <=apply<

(5 not

acjcisstmsnt'. ( ECFhAo. Ib80-XV 1(1 tssuc. Whether the Court erred when ‘rV applied a 2-levelOldnxct^.

a< -lUxT cin^.u

a<s there was nod^twdion tn the corn >

t^ses. me <z-level einnancemenv

----TT^stmabte doubl

justice is pvchi teited as it was note pktven to «ju<y beyond

/inUed

or admitted by Sullivan. The a-pomte should note ^PP’V

U’7T i2AS<C1.

States Supreme Ocurt Case hlakely V- VVash^fotL

• ^e-

^zco+)' ™MciaM a

Sentenom^ enlnancement vvete nerttex

by a |u»y in violation oh the Sixth Anaendnnent htejhte

JUteua'iuty m

a*iu«y tnalviolation ot the United ^States Constitution Sixth Amerdnen g

CEaH<io. hsi)

XIX .Ts^ue -. whether TudaeS^bHghlevv'ed m‘ calcu larhng a multiple ^7

of- A5 when •.VeUauldU.re

a Wet W IS>? "Under

2.- levels were added lay <Tudae -SaaUvialrlr and are added to dV,e’

-for multiple Counts. Counts M and 35should have te®1« le'’ei * an^ Cov^

1 is atoa level ^org, thereto^, a-leWs areadded to estaldish a comUtrtod

cdiusted otlense- level 12-or Id nd 2>S.

Pxxsel on the aforementioned appeal to Sentencing calculations (

appealing

tbr Grunts \f X\} and <3S -foteil odense level ot 4S ard therang^ ofozio ihdSuttivan received trrmthe OistnctCoArt. Sullivan submits -foot ®

tz>tul oUense level <shcrnld Instead be a level IC» or il. The al*i delinks impnscmme*'

i^frge for an dfen^e level ofolO withCnmmal Utetory of-3- U 10-lk> mo»oWfe .

Therango for offense level (I with Oi'minal History Ifo l^-l? vnorths. beth ranges

vn-l-hih 4Vie 20^ UA" of Hie Sentenuvig -fctUewhich would hare givcntheCmd-fhe

disctetioh 4o 6entence Wiedeferctent- -to a-ferwi o^r j rhpnscrviment o\-a -term c>4-

ivnphsonment- -Ifeat- include a term o4 supervised release vvrlfi

one-ha^

Hxi minimum tcvm being served tri pnscm. ,U£S(a..§SL1.^(3) ■ (6CF-M0.13glt (4qs).

SulliVnZvi had o bjec-Vod -to-the 4-feud e^hanremo-rl- ■fer use of-a minor in ^£_—■

1^81 (filed os/ig12022-^' l&zzf-filftd Od|z3|2025) prose objedions ld^rp-1334', I34S;

'Mh Cases m Support Hiaf SuIV.vwn did nof use*

Wenn/

awarded Scholarships fhaf under his confrotcf- (which Sullivan was nof pnvy

te) wifh Caters Millennium hecomptetxsd hie? STEM degrees f Cndielors. c£

Science in MaHi and Etedvual Bgineen^ • The cfher te He alleged use^

h^nbaccounf of a minor, Sulliv«n3 Son Kapono Sulliuxn. <fOF-Mp, 1381.14^

IsqsY Therefore | the 3-level adjuisfvDizk''f upward slculd heteiteri off.

Issue,’. Whether fhe resh-tuhem ot *3,3CX>jAto -should be overturned a^

Sullivan did nof appronS- or receive a copy of Hie erroneous calculaficms -for the

4-Counts ofconviction as Hie amount-ot1 He resti+uhem should have

Coud'1

A4-,252.^’ Count- 7^, ** 8 iCCO^a^d Count- ^S, Qcrpnd Count-1 cH the intriwh^ c

■fer a total amount- oC^lZ, 2S2f^ and nob ^3,dCXP^leO asieforled hy Governvned'

C&P Mn. I3RI . l44C,r 148^14^

The restitution -for

1523)?

should

overturned and thus Ccurl-'Shculd

hold -that- it-sh(7uld have been ^\2f2&2^ .

^Xl Issue. Whether ah the defendants Qur^e ot plea on <Tuly 2012021, Sullivan

believed her-sentencma would b> based upon the -following -time tvames related only

-to He Count-ot- Convictions C Ecf kv^, 1203,14*5) :

Count-1 , January 31 > 20 H -fe (Tuty

2oi4-,

CountZA, January §,2011 to February 22,2013;

Count-35, Marohd; aoiSL-to March 5, 2O(Z’f

Cii Mo. ^|^cxX)qu>, March3,2014 to March 3,2012-CGCFMo. 1203, MoPA)?

VOs, as Sullivan Was misled into helicvrng -Unatshe pled out-to-fhose dates only,

instead Sullivan vvas sen+enosd -fz? alleged acts occumng-fojrn d.004 thvrrugh

that- is a Acted of 13 yeaks. (See LSIavLnss- ktete4_00045 _ Redact^)-Seeafeo

Unil^l States v.

123 F. 3d *4£?d Or Wt) a sentence could -fell "so beyond +he

anticipated vanae" -that- denyUvgJ 4-he ndht- c>t- appeal would naise senous

fu^menfel Orness. Id.«+ lol. SuUl^nV KX&, 2001, 2010 -fay relurvK., whtfe was

audits by Lias Diane TaUahayadii Q &e& Defense Bchibit- II, haanrg tteemhjarlfc,

4022) were also included m Tax Loss bne 31 ^32. which us vvrcmgi *& Govemmorh

iis auditing a prevums audit- of-Hie

EOF Mo. 14^T4).

which

vwjs cavtdacted in

2oiz.CSe&

say Issue. Whether Ahere was enough -for Judge 5eaL*hjhF--fo vevoUc^i^ullirms pro&esW

As iFwos A sVuotuiCil evnrr when he did and^mxnds -for veosal? Juc^g<Sec4pigb-F

revoked Sulliranis pro se ^sferfus and he sfetfod AhaFh... were heading Ao a sutote?n-for |

nn'r"An^l WycM will And -stnTng indiorficrn AtoaF'she wtruld noFAoHew w/hds naquued cfl^

^4hen Tudg>, 5c«UghF Vero^d .Sullivam pvo.se sWus because ofo whaF raighF tapper

whaF-ifo tSee AvanscvipF oF February 4j 7O22fECFkh. i

Theresas rnenAicm of

ma‘ issue ( which Sullwan tad no contn>l over was anoFher reason olsrled by Judge^^bvMhF Ao-f&y-fcjA--^ullivarte rdhF do represenF kerselF. AddHio-rdrl casetaw/Ao ■suppodncA-vevo kirig <5ul|imn’s prose sfcrbus . Ag^m$ y, Carrell, SIS F 2d 1441 C^ltii Civ. 1^8^)

"Ths CcrurFkeld AhaF Ahe b— Amend menF rteihFdo choice cF cCTtnsel " v&Weds Abe

independervF oF concern -for Ahe objectors -fotme&s of -the proceedings/'4&S US.-2®^

ibS-bei^iqg^.y-fPjg Supreme Ccwrf Ims never held AhaF prejudice is a pie-rc^utsiFe-’b

(^^*^1 of a conutobcn for violrrhoh of Abe SixAh Amendmerr vagArF to cfao i co ef counsel.

J lng' X1

. *F2-M S. dM^HSS) ' See Id. ^f rK^-CsievenSj

n^ n

_^nrunc4c>X" in a cnmirMl duse ^n erroneous order dte^uxlifyimz

~e awye<< Chosen by-Hoe defendanf should hesulb in <* rirdn^lly atdomadic rever&stT.")

Inc

__ i

t.i

ttolkd <Mnk5r Fin,|H,8^14 F. 2d fcMfqikCF. W«)

d-pn.sesfcdus.l^

rtppeal^ coixrp -found defendanhs achons dd nd rise -to 4he level oF ohdrucHon’ists

behavior- Iha4 Ahrttdened -the dkjniiy o4- 4Vie Czrur+miiYvi. The CcurF reversed distoid’ceurfo

J <3+Y1erd- oF Connc+icrvi ^aainsl deAend^nks -for muil Fraud ^nd vemctnded preaeedmej

nsw tel Chapin V ^nilrrl

sss F. 2d 88«0M

Gf. f,„r.unttostafiJ,

Hemande^ f IQ*>

&d GI4^4tio Gr. I44A) Ctmvlcfcm vac&fed Aid rem<stnde»l on -finding

dhal Ihedvslncd- ctkH- nobrled de-fendards Uni-led Stories. CoTvsTitochorial tdb/lmendmenln^his when i+denied Inis re^uesh-to represent- himselF.

Jh SCFMfo. 1^, Ha -h^nscnfSh 10/12/2022 iiinhteh Sallis stoded-ttedtohe Caurf (Aolaled Sullivans ^taHs nhen Judzje^Sasrbr^d- rev&ked her pm s&sfe4us

And kepF an cMtomey +hd-Safiirtvn had a oonHicF wHw as sine sued hinn a& he -forded

“fo> olojed' -tojud^e <5eubn^hf cha/kjmq The plea baraaih and An argue AtaA-Jbe'

Uni led Sides caloulahtrrts were inftalecT -foAVe amemnr of^2)044-/^&2., asdbe--

Gorrnimenb -failed ~fo include (deduct AAiemcmi6& oned) es-timaled AaxipaytnenAs and

which toixpaycrs vrere en+iAled.

‘hevefore/>3udge 63abi(ighF^»h(rvild nofo hare beaked -Sulli vans pro se^sA=rb<^ as

iK4I!

Ucj WhdVer Sullivans agreed upcm accjmHed conduct- m‘ Hne Memo randum f-i

Plea AgteevnenF ^MOPA'9) AAne Court should noF have used Aodeterrnine'SullivanJs

Tne&dive counsel Rustam Barbee failed to o\dyacF fa the Presentence RepoH-f'-pst

which the departures created a fa^& disparity between a level lo-ll (torthejt

Counts Sullivan pled cut to)then the -3S Which included all acquitted

fawi tripling Sullivanfe otUnse level, resulting in VS(* htehth sentence With a

restitotxcni c£ d, 3AC?. 28<a.versus what L should have

Qr> months,

and ^te.cco restituticto. Cullivan relied on Judge Seatevghts assurance

) *

Agree to the MOPA.

" THE- COURT■

weao thrmgln all th to,

those other counts getdtsini&isd.

They're gone. GV^y ? " EOF Mo. |2S4 Page 10^ l^zcZtoanscnpt at ha^^ng

July 20,2024).

A distnct ludaefe detenmination ot the extent oban upward depavture,

” £• t “tor

i™

CT-iUci18 u s e. S^A^eYal.^rri.

W.u.*ms v. United

ro«®wUa«6

Sos U.S. ws,

203Cmz). Although the courts have reczgmzaa

p-ec.se rules

t—

up^rd dep^u

reasonable, see £sma, ^OO F. 2d at toh2j courts and others apprt>v

that involves calculating -rhe dclcndai

proiA&icnto. Thus, a deduct court deter

Icy companng the pro visions that apply

' —

. ■

fohurnura j ISS F. 2d 1084, ll)^(3d Cite. Wo)) ,

H3l £4tt>Cto 2002); United Shksv. Roth ,

COUrt avoids the laige- disparities ih

designed to prevent^ and gives the a

uidehre

6AHo ate. IH^oKen Icano) : United toteates V- PueHo. 24 F. &d to

_ H..UJ S-fertes. V-

F. 2d 248, ZSxClOtt’Or. WO .

as is far condaefa™^ a

the departure.

6»a<y; 18 F. id a-t U2»L Relied on imperrnissi Ide -factory or ewoneoas todual hndirgs

to justity the departures - United <Stectos v_ Horten, tS F. ^d <313(Vh Cite. lA'tb).

Caselaws that support that guidelines are advisory only and prevents the

kind ot piling on that the guideline's have keen criticized tor. tSee ±C£±JodS23.,

months te b+e. Thie cose repwssents another example- where-Hie- guideline’s in a

Sctuin ties--fraud pmsecutich "have nun so amok- that they are patentty abourb on

-Hnetr -tece. " United states y. Adelson, 44-1 F. 3upp. 2d 5O&, SlS^SD uy zoOfc9,due

-te the '“tend of- pilling on' of-pointe -for which -the^uidelines. have tesenoHtead/

Jsd..a4- 510. *AHtecrM^h 32 bgan the sentencrh^j prcoasding 'by roncokly Ckilcula+inj

■Hie applicable Guideline ran^e/.. .4 fc ditli'cult- tex a Sentencing jackjete place

vnach stock- in' a Guideline ranae -that" does not" provide reafistic-^aIdanee. "

543 P&upp. 2d 444, 451 <E.O. Kly 2€C>e>).

United Sfetteir, Adelson, 441 F.S>upp- 2d tSOfeGsDMy 2CC^) in •Securities -fraud case,

where guidelines called for-li-te) court imposes a 42-months in pad- because

11 there is 01 considerable- evidence that- even telatirely sharp sentences can have Q

strong deterrent e-ftective- on prospedite 'white-collar’ oftenders . Loss c4over ^50

million with more than 2.50 Vtchrhs.

receiver a

monlh a sideline sentence. President- bush commutes pwson teO

mon s. because £0months is excessive.

Lin 1 led ($tetes v.. Ph^pen, (sSfe F. 2d <32-(|sr

2OI2-) Mailttewd j huahivay prc jec4tvaudz4i'id

Conspiracy to defraud government- ih the amount- at- tls. 2 nd I ion , sentenced te C=>

months ot- home vnoni+onnc| , <3 yasvs probation ? ^nd l,CCO hours of-community

■Service C^uidelines were- S0-IO4-mcmHnc,^.

SP-nr-r, TO P M in-tglhc* JOI2.) Jun, found fo-n ujU.Hy U- (Ocou.4

1,0 ^wd ’oviola-hch ot- l?U.$.C.§ 1343 and Mother -fraud related?enmes.

•yon-lhs impnsonmoil-^ restitution ot1'*!-, §44,CS^.- .

P-h,

—!--- k- ttnited 'States, 551 U.S. 33s , |24«S.Ch. ^ASlo f 24G5 , IGS L. fel. 2d 203 C2OO4)A

C0ur4 may decide " that-the Guidelines sentence -should noh apply, perhaps becausete case at-haiid -tells outeide the ' hearttand7 "to which the Commissicm intends •

Ihctitedtual Guidelines fo apply. z'

*■ l^hrF, Ji-t F.aa 554(qt$iOc 3Ois>) Tm evasimeax, Ro ►vTonAFs,

^)t5fe)^>^!teaba, 2DZZ u.s.Ofot-. Lexis zzgjzoi usoc Or^.ol Cllfem^

Tvaud caee, sentenced to 135 months, restitutioh

U s Dii* Lcx,&

44U. K,

44 5kl .^.

4> to, fc>D8,ioS.

u.s.^.4

CM1&> eenten«Kl fol Jay (mpnsonm^f resHfohonof-

United 6Ues v. MUiarns , 2022- U.S .OfeV. LCYis ZlZ^fus. Dish. Ct. Wisconsin festem

Dish. 2022) tvcmd case, sentenced te> <40 iwnHt>; restitution o4^ 4,42S ,

Untied Stctesv lohnscnn, 2022- U.S. Dish. LEX is W2OSO (WesA\ Dish c4 Wisconsin 2OZ2-J

fraud case1 sentenced -fa

memAtes, 3 years supervised release, restitution ^|,51O,

UmW Stales >.^,2Z>Z2- U.S. Ofc* tens 2^480, tank feud, sentence te lS

years supervised release, h^+iterhan

million.

Unite! State r, Mons, 2op. 4ta w|(_ |Hfc

?olx>

months teamed on loss of-Q>)zfoI, |te3 ^moun-f billedte> Medicate-^ Medicaid.

United S^fates V, ?r>\\an=\, 1 count oh aggravated ID The4F arid aiding and abetting,

4-Countct-false 10 document Witte intentto defraud United States,*4, US, 034

'feftei+ed and I, 430, 3dU.^ (h nsstitutican ; sentenced tt> firnc- cewsd , Zycc^s

^upewisttel release.

United ^-batef*

4IF.4& 1043(4^. 2o2Z)Used mal-hpte Phases and

aUilte^X’teC^^de4V^adQ^ a°^

million. In ^014,plead

5)llnw/=d K

' moneV laundering and <stvuc4urind t sentenced -te loo mo<-rtes

follow^ by Aytats ^Pe^Rd=^*Srn.,||io,1

, 2022 U.S. App. LFte ,15O4

^DbP,raCV t COm'V’'4_ mc>ney

^to

2022)

-*<^',324, S^SJ^sHulwn,

rnomns imprisonment"

Un,4ed

7C22- U.S. Dish LOXIS teS34S( D.c. Conn. Sepf. H,202^1

SUtevvised Rdeai^niJtj343 ‘ <SOntenfecl

l4^ monHvs im’pn’sonrrienF, 5 yea»s

nsstltedwi Ot-more-tban^zomilhon.

AimTr^

- vZOZ2-U.S. Dish LLXkS 17/^aS,

Sentenced +o 4Zmonths iU

14,5• 0NiV, Dec. i^( 2022) Pteiud-cryptecoin,

Unlte) State „

^<4,443 msIHuW.

feshtuhicrn orev 4 23, u>2£

, 5 years Supervised release.

to 23 months irnnn<=n^

innpn^nmenhand pay

Mil|(On

Alfarf, *o F. 4ta 51+(5taGk

Wln£-fraud, m<aiI -fraud ,sentence

Ktail feud |nn5sbvB.taSa«^?

^v^+0 UM taontas .» pnsan,4ystls sup^sad

I|.ni(c4 Sfci^s y FrMlon, 50 F. 4*1

c<r. 2OV^ Ftaud, money taundwrirfCpyd^l)

Connoted on all counts Sentenced te> JLyear and Iday

prison -followed by 3 ycwis

<sup9rvised release, and sentenced Volhs7 -fc> G years irhpnsonmerrf- ivi+h 3 years

Si^^ns^^rjolo^ ^sr res-trtehete amount- ^4,43T, Sb3 li? and 2^ r^fitediDn was

Jte W - ,-fotel tertedure jud^menb

445^

Goro-nmentretn ms.

FDtC v Ozavc-jci 403 F. 3d TlOftethQ^ 2cc^) Sentenced te 2-ymrs probation te> Zcounts op

rmteria-fztke<5tetetnente 4z?<SunbelP Ped. Savings in v-fola-hari c4 I3U.S.C.S 1014,

Ordered -fo pay ngstltertlGh

b 20 ,^22

United States v

Oota'ch, hl4 F.3d 3l4(li!aC<n 2010 ) Doteich pled quilty fo 1 ccunf of mai I

<°

^nng.

pay a restitution oV 4 QS, 441 , \2-2^.

" THE COV&.T ■ - - we^t? through <^11 +Vil±> , dll those other Counts

dismissed-

TheyVe aorte. OVasp. "(ecfMo. 12-54, Page lO^i^^C^anscvip^ d b&rnnj ^l/^jzoz

Tf was not gone, Sullivan ^got sentenced "to al) counts

if T plead^uilty

to all of them, Sul|( van relied on the statement mode by fudge Sesbnght in

goibg -forward with Hie pled. That vvcte not true as Sulliwxn was sentenced "to

all dtst-Y)i5»sed and unchiargsd conduct-.

^X1Y_

Issue’. Whether district courtfailed To make -findings c»n ok^strudion d-

jas-hce and loss of acceptance of responsibility which Sullivan wasgiren

enhanced sentence C EOF Kb. ISOS)?

For the .guidance enkvxncemrnt to apply, Sullivan must have

engaged m obstvuctive Conduct,

willfully

which the term "willful''regu lies a Conscious and

intentional failure. The district frurt failed to make any find ings that estddisliec

willful ness, and the record is ihsu4iaehf for the Kiinth Circuit- -to make 4

determination that- Sullivan u wilfully " obstructed justice. Turni ng te the- dem

#4 acceptance of tesponsibi li ty, because the demal of acceptance of tesponsibi lily

was bu6ed en -the -scirne gnrui'vds

the obstvuctirn erihancemente. -See. United

^States v. Martinet- Mernaraeg , Mo. 2-2-5(Otz( S^Cir. X)22>) RftVi Crrcu ite vacates

Sentence where Court failed fc> moke findings of obstruction of-justice and

4 offenses, of her Ccmvicticrh fhnrutgh her admtssicms Contained in fine MC>PA,

hCFMo- 1203 and In her Cjkilty pleas before fhe Ccurf, and denies any eUtiuctrcm

after fhe entry of <Sullii/anf guilty pleas and notes fhcrffhe- pnjfioarticJH tea

dgieed and ftvat Sulltvam should tee. awarded Sentence credits ffr acceptance

responsibility and -timely gui Ify pleats fsa^Td. af p<arggrz»phs lo(a) and (h)),

ciddificmalty Sullivan mef ria Video taleconferenCe with probedicm officer cm

A^gusf E ) ?O2| f and “accepted responsibility fenr Committing the instant

eftenses" and furfhermons-i the 'Sentencing guidelines provide fhctf la deterdant

te not- reguired -to volunteer, or afhrvndtiveJy admif, retevanf Conduct- beyond

the offense of conviction in order ta> elotath a reduction.. • " -fer acceptir^

responsibility CU6SGS3Et 1 app. noteM>). Therefore-, dulliican -should hare

received a downward departure- for acceptanee of ^portability and no

enlmnccd -Sentence -for ohstmdicm ofjustice

y , Issue. Whether on March 3.8, ~LO2^>, the date of sentendrg was fhe fiisf

overSullivan^

objection she told her attorney Rustam fcarbee ftoaf she needed more time to

renew, still Dtetncf eoud" vvenf -forrvavd with fhe -sentenceng ta ric>l^ticry1

o-F <Sulli va.n£ CcvistifutiDnal lights?

getting sssntenced. On that &ame day she^sentenced to <T

even -taoi^h

'SulUvzvi told her appointed attorney, Who -she had a contlicF with that she needed

more hme- to veview -the prcsentenee repovt^ Same attorney Rustam Car-bee vto

Sullivan sued). “The dis-tact court uh this c&ge, yja& to ctfer a. time to the disto'ct

Caurts -firings ofetact and conclusion

law. <Sze United

Jones,

F2d

loq^-j Uoz^u+hoh Itao). Since Sullivan did not have time to tactually dispute the

Pkesenfenre Report, the recovd is ihsutticient tor m^ninjtul appellate review‘'CAI defense Counsels tai lure to show his client the pnssentence iTtport to Ils toetow

the standard ot (reasonable competent vepvesenterhcm." United -Slafesv, Donn, CCl Zd

£20 f Si-tC^llhCtr. 1^80. Even it this statement were, net true , a defendant Must

€>tiU Satiety the prcdu.dice pvpna oh 6tnrJdand. A defendant nesds to poiht to«ny

intownahon in the Pn?<Centence Report that she claims was material y tate^misleadiir^j intormahcrh in' the repohj which 'SulltVari has Jone m the previous

issues. t5.iAUiv.txn woTAld have objected to the -following m the Presentencey

(Report.

( O Issue-. Dis-tact Court ewed in award ihrj resfrtahtoi when Sulliran did net

reCeiV° <3o<emments ” new schedule " -for actual tay. losses , credi

Venfication W actual Credit c»vol ccnmpanies C wh»ch^ovemmentdid

not^tt-ata?) tar actual losses, and education

restitutio^) as

tow\se\ RustamCarbee did nofe insure Sullivan ^otthis intorrnatiirn

'Sen-fenona which was a due protest violation and attested

ivems

^ce. (See

<*•*■ APP(2iK3Cir. 2o22_xVisovr Willie applied)-

oh all the atoiemenhonod Sullivan should have been <xio\& to

Reasons For

A-he fehhon

on +he ^-fonsvnenhonsd 4hu=> Court- should , respeoKull^ , ^nA- nny

IpeArhon •

Conclusion

The- petvhon "for"

vx/riV oV cenhovziri shou'd Ice-^rein-led -

ftespecF-fully subWdted}

klove^laen JO*. 2023,-^^^,^.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.